Remember that picture of Trumps fist in the air and blood on his face?

originally posted by: AlroyFarms

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: BingoMcGoof
I do. I thought at the time that that one would make a majestic cover for Time Magazine. Powerful, Iconic. Certainly an image to go down in history.

But did it make the cover of Time, we know how he loves his picture on the cover of Time.

Welllll, it got stolen from him. Bet that frosts his jo jos.

Yep. Getting beaten by a black woman must really roll up his hose. So to speak.

Doubtful. He and millions of others have been aware of the media bias against him.

It's an INSULT for certain media outlets to give him attention. "TIME" is one of them.

July 28, 2024

FIGHT!----FIGHT!----FIGHT!

It might, heck, -check that- it does seem overwhelming at times. But that is the Godless nature of this collectivist strategy. That is the purpose of this bombardment. We must hold strong and push back against the lies and manipulations. If you look closely at their attack -their stupid constructs, schemes and fraud- it is weak psychological bait. Do not fall into the trap of despair.

When we share the message “live your best life”, it is not without purpose. Every moment that we allow the onslaught to deter us from living our dreams, is a moment those insufferable demons who oppose our nation view as us taking a knee. Do not allow this effort to succeed.

You might ask yourself how I can, one person, a flea looking into a furnace, retain an optimistic disposition while all around me seems chaotic and mad. The simple answer is, it’s your choice. Two wolves fight – one filled with despondency, isolation, despair and dark imaginings; the other filled with faith, something bigger, unrelenting hope, focus and driven to remain connected. Which wolf will win? The one you feed.

Shake it off. WATCH:

Nice Music Video: theconservativetreehouse.com...

originally posted by: chr0naut

The text of the 5th clearly and explicitly says it applies to capital and infamous crime. Extension of that into unstated areas is outside the remit of the clause.

The semicolon indeed does signify a list, but not of separate statements. The semicolon binds together statements in a list in commonality of theme. The 5th is a list of statements dependent upon each other. The statements do not stand alone. A period (full stop) would signify separate independent statements. Each semicolon delimited statement is inclusively connected to the preface statement. They are conditions of the other listed statements within the sentence, and specifically to the prefacing (first) one.

This is incorrect. Were that actually the case then double jeopardy would be possible in cases that aren't capital crimes or infamous crime because double jeopardy is not forbidden in any other amendments. No one would be guaranteed due process outside of capital crimes. No one would have the right to remain silent outside of capital crimes. Your argument is totally incorrect and highlights a fundamental lack of understanding of our bill of rights and/or how our constitution functions. There is no dependency on the initial clause.

In British common law, someone being interviewed by the police must be told the truth and a misrepresentation on behalf of the police is grounds for abandoning the trial on ground of coercion. The same is not true within the US law enforcement and judicial system where police may freely misrepresent their having evidence that they don't have, or other untrue coercive practices, to secure a confession and confessions that are coerced are still entered into evidence.

Good for British Common Law. Last I checked we were discussing United States law. Confessions that can be shown to have been obtained by coercion as defined in US law are inadmissible as evidence, and convictions obtained based on confessions found to be coerced are overturned.

I previously listed 12 rights that are not explicitly included in the US Bill of Rights:

- The right to remedy
- The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty
- The right to freedom of movement
- The right to asylum
- The right to a nationality
- The right to family
- The right to social security
- The right to desirable work and trade unions
- The right to rest
- The right to an adequate living standard (health, housing, and food)
- The right to education
- The right to culture

And it has already been explained to you that many of those things are either included in sections of our bill of rights, are handled outside of our bill of rights, or are arguably not rights at all.

In the case of the 13th, US citizens can, and historically have been, imprisoned merely for possession of own-use amounts of controlled substances:

Drug Possession Penalties and Sentencing.

And? While I may or may not agree with the law with regards to criminalization of possession of personal use amounts of drugs, as long as the law says it is illegal to possess those substances in any amount whatsoever then a person can be imprisoned for possessing it. What exactly is your point here?

I would argue that service of a prison sentence subsequent to due process should not be equated with slavery, as the 13th seems to imply. They are quite different things and the exception within the statute weakens the anti-slavery status of the 13th.

And you're welcome to make that argument, but at a conceptual level they are indistinguishable.
The clarification that slavery and/or indentured servitude are permissible in instances of incarceration are absolutely necessary from a legal standpoint and it in no way weakens the 13th. Enslaving someone simply because you want to is illegal according to the 13th amendment. It isn't 96% illegal. It isn't only kind of illegal. It is absolutely illegal.

You're not approaching this from a point of understanding the history and the context of American law or the constitution and this is why you are so at odds with it. This is why you seem to think that the clauses within the 5th amendment only apply to capital crimes, which is demonstrably false and that is well understood in the US.

originally posted by: MrGashler

originally posted by: chr0naut

The text of the 5th clearly and explicitly says it applies to capital and infamous crime. Extension of that into unstated areas is outside the remit of the clause.

The semicolon indeed does signify a list, but not of separate statements. The semicolon binds together statements in a list in commonality of theme. The 5th is a list of statements dependent upon each other. The statements do not stand alone. A period (full stop) would signify separate independent statements. Each semicolon delimited statement is inclusively connected to the preface statement. They are conditions of the other listed statements within the sentence, and specifically to the prefacing (first) one.

This is incorrect. Were that actually the case then double jeopardy would be possible in cases that aren't capital crimes or infamous crime because double jeopardy is not forbidden in any other amendments. No one would be guaranteed due process outside of capital crimes. No one would have the right to remain silent outside of capital crimes. Your argument is totally incorrect and highlights a fundamental lack of understanding of our bill of rights and/or how our constitution functions. There is no dependency on the initial clause.

That isn't the way that a semicolon is used in the English language. If they wanted each subclause to stand on their own, they could have used a period. It's not too hard a concept to understand or implement.

Definitely, the proper use of the semicolon was defined hundreds of years prior to the authorship of the US Constitution, and in subsequent American publications shows that it was not a replacement of a period and that it tied together list items in common theme, much like an 'elongated' comma.

Semicolon

Wouldn't retrial on appeal or retrial after new evidence becomes available or Grand Jury (5th Amendment) trials be contrary to the double jeopardy clause as written? Also, the same crime in the US can be tried at State and Federal level and not be considered double jeopardy.

That is the problem with the US Constitution, it self contradicts, and is written so poorly, with insufficient specificity, which often allows contestable interpretations to completely nullify the meaning or probable intent of the clause.

In British common law, someone being interviewed by the police must be told the truth and a misrepresentation on behalf of the police is grounds for abandoning the trial on ground of coercion. The same is not true within the US law enforcement and judicial system where police may freely misrepresent their having evidence that they don't have, or other untrue coercive practices, to secure a confession and confessions that are coerced are still entered into evidence.

Good for British Common Law. Last I checked we were discussing United States law. Confessions that can be shown to have been obtained by coercion as defined in US law are inadmissible as evidence, and convictions obtained based on confessions found to be coerced are overturned.

US Law derives from British Common Law, except where overridden by respective State law, except where overridden by Federal law, except where overridden by the US Constitution.

And in regard to the police coercing a suspect by implying that they have yestimony or evidence that they don't, can you please post a link to that statute? Because you cannot be protected from coercive practices by laws that simply don't exist. In fact, it would seem that the police would have to just about kill or maim someone before they are liable for prosecution for coercive acts done under 'colour of law':

18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law

I suppose that explains why there are so many deaths at the hands of officers that will never be prosecuted in the US.

But these are codified explicitly as rights under the the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So the aren't arguably not rights. US Citizens have no right to education; no right to adequate housing; no right to health services; no right to safe healthy food. Even under other statute or law.

Currently in the USA there are more than half a million homeless. And they aren't there because they are insane. They are there because they can't afford accommodation, they can't get social security without an address of residence, they can't get a job because there are so many out of work. They are stuck outside the system and must rely on someone else's charity, or commission of a crime, to change their situation. In some US towns and cities, the only official response is to periodically blast them off the street with fire hoses.

So much for truth, justice, and the American way.

In the case of the 13th, US citizens can, and historically have been, imprisoned merely for possession of own-use amounts of controlled substances:

Drug Possession Penalties and Sentencing.

And? While I may or may not agree with the law with regards to criminalization of possession of personal use amounts of drugs, as long as the law says it is illegal to possess those substances in any amount whatsoever then a person can be imprisoned for possessing it. What exactly is your point here?

Isn't it cruel and unusual punishment for something that could be solved with a simple confiscation and a verbal warning?

And you're welcome to make that argument, but at a conceptual level they are indistinguishable.
The clarification that slavery and/or indentured servitude are permissible in instances of incarceration are absolutely necessary from a legal standpoint and it in no way weakens the 13th.

But other countries don't have any exceptions to their anti-slavery laws.

Enslaving someone simply because you want to is illegal according to the 13th amendment. It isn't 96% illegal. It isn't only kind of illegal. It is absolutely illegal.

But enslaving someone because they have a conviction for a small amount of weed, or a few pills, is currently totally legal in the US. Riiiight?

You're not approaching this from a point of understanding the history and the context of American law or the constitution and this is why you are so at odds with it. This is why you seem to think that the clauses within the 5th amendment only apply to capital crimes, which is demonstrably false and that is well understood in the US.

No, I believe there should be ongoing processes that add new amendments to the Constitution in light of new developments, tech, and societal changes.

originally posted by: chr0naut

That isn't the way that a semicolon is used in the English language. If they wanted each subclause to stand on their own, they could have used a period. It's not too hard a concept to understand or implement.

You're still arguing a point that is demonstrably false. So either you somehow understand the text of the 5th amendment better than literally everyone else, including the people who drafted the text found within, or you're incorrect.

Either due process is guaranteed only for capital crimes, or you're incorrect.
Either you have the right to remain silent only in the case of capital crimes, or you're incorrect.
Etc. Etc. Etc.

Definitely, the proper use of the semicolon was defined hundreds of years prior to the authorship of the US Constitution, and in subsequent American publications shows that it was not a replacement of a period and that it tied together list items in common theme, much like an 'elongated' comma.

You even said it and still didn't see it. Yes, the joining of independent clauses by the use of a semicolon is proper, but the important part about that is the -independent- part. Multiple statements joined together by a theme, but are perfectly capable of standing on their own.

The theme is not "only for capital or infamous crime". The theme is limitations placed on the executive branch with regards to what they can and cannot do to a person. Again, you aren't approaching this from an understanding of American history or law.

Wouldn't retrial on appeal or retrial after new evidence becomes available or Grand Jury (5th Amendment) trials be contrary to the double jeopardy clause as written? Also, the same crime in the US can be tried at State and Federal level and not be considered double jeopardy.

I admit that I could be wrong on this, but I don't think retrial on appeal or retrial after the presentation of new evidence is possible. It wouldn't make any sense. Grand jury trials aren't themselves double jeopardy.
There are two important things to note about your comment regarding being tried at the state and federal level. The first is that the state will not prosecute federal crimes nor vice versa, the second is what's called the dual sovereignty doctrine. This essentially states that if a person commits a crime that violates the laws of multiple sovereigns, they can be tried by each sovereign independently for the same crime. This does not violate double jeopardy.

That is the problem with the US Constitution, it self contradicts, and is written so poorly, with insufficient specificity, which often allows contestable interpretations to completely nullify the meaning or probable intent of the clause.

You're entitled to that opinion, but it seems like you're really the one having issues interpreting the meaning behind what was written. We actually have tons of documents that pretty clearly explain the intent of a given clause.

US Law derives from British Common Law, except where overridden by respective State law, except where overridden by Federal law, except where overridden by the US Constitution.

And english derives from german, except where it derives from latin, except where it derives from any number of other languages.

And in regard to the police coercing a suspect by implying that they have yestimony or evidence that they don't, can you please post a link to that statute? Because you cannot be protected from coercive practices by laws that simply don't exist. In fact, it would seem that the police would have to just about kill or maim someone before they are liable for prosecution for coercive acts done under 'colour of law':

What exactly are you talking about? Are you under the impression that being lied to is coercion?

But these are codified explicitly as rights under the the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So the aren't arguably not rights. US Citizens have no right to education; no right to adequate housing; no right to health services; no right to safe healthy food. Even under other statute or law.

There's a concept that exists that defines 'rights' as either positive or negative. A positive right is a right to be given something, ie food, housing, healthcare, etc. A negative right is a right that protects human freedom or liberty by limiting the actions of others or governments towards the right holder, ie free speech, due process, bearing arms, etc.
A positive right necessarily requires someone to provide it for you even if it takes away from themselves. A negative right requires no such thing. I have no right to housing because if I did the government would be obligated to provide it for me even if it would take it away from someone else. I have no right to healthcare because I am not entitled to the labor of another person. I have no right to food because, again, I am not entitled to the labor of another person. I like it this way because I don't advocate for the theft of another persons labor.

Currently in the USA there are more than half a million homeless. And they aren't there because they are insane. They are there because they can't afford accommodation, they can't get social security without an address of residence, they can't get a job because there are so many out of work. They are stuck outside the system and must rely on someone else's charity, or commission of a crime, to change their situation. In some US towns and cities, the only official response is to periodically blast them off the street with fire hoses.

Yeah no, some of them are there because they are insane. Some of them are there because they're extremely addicted to drugs. Some of them are there because they gambled their lives away. Some of them are there because things went bad in their lives. I agree that homelessness in the US is a problem because I've seen it myself first hand. I just don't agree that the government should be in the business of handling the issue. The government should not be trusted. As far as your video, I can't see the video on the system I use for ATS, can you provide the youtube title so I can look it up?

Isn't it cruel and unusual punishment for something that could be solved with a simple confiscation and a verbal warning?

Not at all. You don't seem to really understand what goes on in the US or how these things go down. The more you talk about what you think you know about the US, the more clear it becomes that you don't really understand it at all.

But other countries don't have any exceptions to their anti-slavery laws.

So they either don't acknowledge that incarceration is a form of slavery, or they contradict themselves.

But enslaving someone because they have a conviction for a small amount of weed, or a few pills, is currently totally legal in the US. Riiiight?

Yep. In some places in the US it is totally legal to incarcerate someone for possession of personal use amounts of drugs. Generally depends on the drugs they had.

No, I believe there should be ongoing processes that add new amendments to the Constitution in light of new developments, tech, and societal changes.

So you believe that what already happens should happen. Cool.

originally posted by: MrGashler

originally posted by: chr0naut

You're still arguing a point that is demonstrably false. So either you somehow understand the text of the 5th amendment better than literally everyone else, including the people who drafted the text found within, or you're incorrect.

Either due process is guaranteed only for capital crimes, or you're incorrect.
Either you have the right to remain silent only in the case of capital crimes, or you're incorrect.
Etc. Etc. Etc.

My point was that all sorts of BS interpretation is possible if you ignore the rules of language, as has been done in the USA. The interpretations of the text of the US Constitution are based in solecist misunderstandings because the text was so poorly written. Legal text needs to be especially precise and unambiguous, perhaps none more so that the ultimate legal statute of a National Constitution.

There are far too many vagaries in the text of the US Constitution, it as if it was written by yokels trying to look 'clever'.

You even said it and still didn't see it. Yes, the joining of independent clauses by the use of a semicolon is proper, but the important part about that is the -independent- part. Multiple statements joined together by a theme, but are perfectly capable of standing on their own.

Linked items are not independent. Independent items are not linked. The very definition that suggests 'linked independent statements' is self-contradictory and invalid.

The only time I wrote of independent statements were those separated by a period, which would be un-linked except perhaps proximally.

The theme is not "only for capital or infamous crime". The theme is limitations placed on the executive branch with regards to what they can and cannot do to a person. Again, you aren't approaching this from an understanding of American history or law.

American history and law is based upon a flawed Constitution. The current poorly adhered to status of the US Constitution evidences itself in bad laws and a history of unprosecuted oppression of natives, and oppression of the enslaved, and oppression of the poor and many internal revolts and wars. List of rebellions in the United States.

But I was referring to the theme of the paragraph of the 5th amendment, not the theme in general of the whole Constitution.

I admit that I could be wrong on this, but I don't think retrial on appeal or retrial after the presentation of new evidence is possible. It wouldn't make any sense.

Grand jury trials aren't themselves double jeopardy.

Are you saying that other laws override what the Constitution says?

Retrials based on new evidence frequently resolve cold cases, overturning previous convictions. e.g. Trump has the option of appeal for retrial. It is a really-really common occurrence.

Also, if you claim that the condition of 'capital or infamous crime' is not applicable to sub-clauses, then it doesn't apply to the double jeopardy sub-clause either, and hence would apply to any Federal trial, and to state law under it. You can't read the same semicolon delimited clauses in the 5th and interpret the meaning of the semicolon one way for one, and then the other way for another.

There are two important things to note about your comment regarding being tried at the state and federal level. The first is that the state will not prosecute federal crimes nor vice versa, the second is what's called the dual sovereignty doctrine. This essentially states that if a person commits a crime that violates the laws of multiple sovereigns, they can be tried by each sovereign independently for the same crime. This does not violate double jeopardy.

Again, where is that stated in the Constitution, or is it another case of other laws overriding the Constitution? The clause means nothing if it can't actually apply and direct law under it.

You're entitled to that opinion, but it seems like you're really the one having issues interpreting the meaning behind what was written. We actually have tons of documents that pretty clearly explain the intent of a given clause.

From the Federalist papers you get that the intent of the 2nd was to arm absolutely everybody?

And english derives from german, except where it derives from latin, except where it derives from any number of other languages.

What exactly are you talking about? Are you under the impression that being lied to is coercion?

Yes!

Lies are also against the law going back to Hammurabi and Moses.

But not in the USA! Lies are protected by free speech! LOL. Such an advanced? country.

There's a concept that exists that defines 'rights' as either positive or negative. A positive right is a right to be given something, ie food, housing, healthcare, etc. A negative right is a right that protects human freedom or liberty by limiting the actions of others or governments towards the right holder, ie free speech, due process, bearing arms, etc.
A positive right necessarily requires someone to provide it for you even if it takes away from themselves. A negative right requires no such thing. I have no right to housing because if I did the government would be obligated to provide it for me even if it would take it away from someone else. I have no right to healthcare because I am not entitled to the labor of another person. I have no right to food because, again, I am not entitled to the labor of another person. I like it this way because I don't advocate for the theft of another persons labor.

So you only have a few negative rights, and no positive ones, even though the rest of the world has them. You make my case.

Yeah no, some of them are there because they are insane. Some of them are there because they're extremely addicted to drugs. Some of them are there because they gambled their lives away. Some of them are there because things went bad in their lives. I agree that homelessness in the US is a problem because I've seen it myself first hand. I just don't agree that the government should be in the business of handling the issue. The government should not be trusted. As far as your video, I can't see the video on the system I use for ATS, can you provide the youtube title so I can look it up?

Yeah, it's always their fault. Not.

The video was Lou Reed's "Dirty Blvd. (2020 Remaster)". Read the the lyrics here.

Not at all. You don't seem to really understand what goes on in the US or how these things go down. The more you talk about what you think you know about the US, the more clear it becomes that you don't really understand it at all.

So they either don't acknowledge that incarceration is a form of slavery, or they contradict themselves.

Yep. In some places in the US it is totally legal to incarcerate someone for possession of personal use amounts of drugs. Generally depends on the drugs they had.

So you believe that what already happens should happen. Cool.

Forced labour should not be part of punishment. Labour should be entirely voluntary, as a way to demonstrate good behaviour and to keep the facilitates liveable.

Slavery is also different than imprisonment.